So, a foreign national was allowed to vote after showing election officials at the polls a green card, social security number, and a driver’s license. After this, she voted in two more elections.

Let that sink in for a bit…

She provided a green card, a social security number, and a driver’s license…

A GREEN CARD…

So, yeah: I agree with the left on this one. Voter ID laws will have no impact – not because there is no illegal voting going on, but because it doesn’t matter: those that check ID at the polls are either too stupid to know what ID a legal citizen would have, vs. that of a foreign national – or they…

…Just. Don’t. Care.

Voter ID laws will make little difference when it is the EXPRESS INTENT of those managing the polls to circumvent the law by allowing anyone and everyone to vote. The judge, in this case, should not have “scolded” the election officials involved; he should have jailed them for contempt.

“Conservatives are thrilled a woman with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed a 19-year-old would-be mugger. That’s not how justice works. The penalty for theft is not death, nor do we want it to be.” —Think Progress editor Zack Ford

What strange universe does Ford live in where one should subjugate oneself to thugs? What strange dimension does he call home, where a criminal is valued equal to those s/he would victimize?

Look: I don’t like seeing people – any people – killed. However, if a person’s life is taken, I prefer that it be taken while they are demonstrating their explicit unfitness for society by, for instance: committing a crime. I find this highly superior to someone being killed for the act of being victimized by a criminal.

I wonder how Ford protects himself. Is there a guard at his place of work? An armed guard, perhaps? Since he’s so outspoken and in the public eye, does he have a body guard?

And what would Ford prefer if he found himself in a similar situation? Would he choose to simply let the event play out in the hopes that no-one got hurt? Or would he protect himself by any means available to him. (Side note: it is human nature to do the latter.)

“I firmly believe the [Constitution] permits indicting a sitting president, but if DOJ disagrees, indicting his children, the Trump Org & Foundation for their roles in wrongdoing is a great alternative — or addition.” —Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks

I see SOMEONE was paying attention to how the Nazis controlled their officers!

I have a question for all those constitutional lawyers wandering the country: how is it that the federal government has been able to modify the 2nd amendment through executive and legislative fiat? Since it is a constitutional amendment, aren’t the same hurdles to amendment in place for the second amendment as for all others?

Article. V of the constitution says

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Show me in Article V where any tie-in to taxation gives the federal government authority to modify parts of the constitution (the mode by which the NFA of 1934 was made “law”)? Do you see some mention of interstate commerce giving the federal government the power modify the constitution (the vehicle by which the GCA of 1968 was foisted on we, the people)? How about executive fiat (the methods for the “Assault” Weapon Ban of 1994 and Trump’s new Bump Stock Ban)? Doesn’t the second amendment very succinctly state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed? Seems to be a whole lot of extra-constitutional infringement going on.

I, for one, am sick and tired of these creative abuses of law. I’m sick and tired of elected REPRESENTATIVES believing they are our RULERS. Any true constitutional scholar would see through these acts on their face – but the government, instead, looks to other facets of the constitution to justify their acts, and wrap the state’s tentacles over ever more of your life while further limiting any ability to defend yourself against it. Remember all the warnings from our forefathers regarding standing armies. Who has and controls those armies now?

I fear for future generations, especially since they have been molded by the apparatchik of the public schools. We’re already seeing the fruits of their labors in today’s young adults – second or third generation products of the modern public schools system.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So much for well-meaning intentions vs. the machinations of a body addicted to power and bent on dominating others…

“To all the trump supporters who follow me who I have no desire to spend my time blocking, indictments are not fake news. They are proof of criminal activity. These are facts. Everyone is the presidents circle is a criminal because they all work for one.” —Chelsea Handler

In•dict/inˈdīt/ verbOrigin: North Americaformally accuse of or charge with a serious crime.

“[Democrats] are working to make certain that the agenda of the most racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted president in history will go nowhere because Democrats will control the House and the Senate.” —Sen. Bernie Sanders

Wait, what? Lyndon Johnson has been out of office for 50 years! His agenda is loooooong past! Oh, wait! Maybe you meant that he won’t be voting Democrat this year…

“There were armed guards at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Pulse, the high schools in Parkland and Santa Fe, and on and on. A deranged civilian with an AR-15 and a death wish will always overpower security guards. The @NRA wants us to continue escalating this arms race.” —Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts

Wait, what?! There were no armed guards at ANY of those! Had there been armed guards, it is doubtful there would have been so much carnage. But, no: organizations like “Mom’s Demand Action” PRECLUDE having armed guards in schools! “Seeing guns in school will traumatize the children!” Oh? More than being shot to death by some looney would?

You people are PATHETIC. You feign concern over children – our children – MY children! -while your very position on the issues preclude their safety. Your desire, for whatever reason, is the elimination of the right to keep and bear arms. And you don’t care how many are killed – children, adults: it makes no difference to you – until you achieve your goal. The ends justify the means, hey, Shannon?

You’rewrong. Your grasp of history is wrong. And your politics are wrong.

Oh, can you hear the leftists crow! She DOES have native American in her blood line! Oh, Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

So, if we take a generation at its current definition of 30 years and apply that to, say, 1940? Fair enough? And then apply the definition of a generation for “primitive” culture prior to that, we come up with…. oh… between 226 and 146 years ago for this genetic mixing to have occurred. Definitely within the realm of possibility, depending on her lineage and how long her lineage has been in North America – it is highly unlikely such mixing occurred in Europe, where the vast – VAST – majority of her genetic lineage derives – during that period.

So, her claim of there having been an American Indian in her family tree may (I still say “may” because… UC-Berkely) be true, but any claim of being a native American is patently false: a white crayon likely has more native American DNA than she does.